-editorial
Tyler again
The top two finalists in the ASUO primary election for the
Incidental Fee Committee (IFC), David Tyler and David
Parr, will again face each other in the ASUO general elec
tion this week. In the primary race the Emerald endorsed
Tyler. He still remains the more qualified candidate.
Our endorsement of Tyler is based on his perceptive
analysis of several shortcomings in the way the IFC has
operated this year. Tyler is upset and justly so, considering
the IFC's decision to drop the appeals process for pro
gram budgets. Because of this decision, the only hope a
program has of getting the IFC’s budget recommendation
for the program changed is for the ASUO Executive to veto
the IFC’s recommendation.
Tyler also takes exception to a change in the IFC’s
procedural rules. Under the new procedure the IFC chairer
is allowed, at the chairer’s discretion, to solicit a member s
vote by telephone when the committee has less than a
quorum. We feel, as does Tyler, that members who can't
attend the meetings should not be allowed to vote.
Another procedural rule that he objects to is the method
for removing a member from the committee. The criteria for
removal is so vague that conceivably a member could be
removed for petty, personal reasons.
Tyler is determined to insure that programs funded by
the IFC develop their full potential. One reason that this
potential is sometimes not fully realized is a lack of com
munications between the program and the student body.
He would encourage programs to include line items for
funds to open up lines of communication between the
program and the students. He would also encourage the
IFC to set aside enough money in its own budget to pub
licize the programs it funds.
When evaluating program budgets, Tyler would insist
that the committee look at the program’s past performance
as well as its future plans and goals. He does not advocate,
however, that the IFC tamper with the internal policy and
operation of a program unless the program is grossly neg
ligent in living up to the goals for which it was originally
funded.
Tyler, an economics major in the Honors College, is
aggressive, articulate and well-informed. His knowledge of
the committee’s past performance and his hopes for its
future direction also speak well of his candidacy. His elec
tion to the IFC would add an assertive, program-oriented
voice to the committee.
L_J
Letters
Story corrected
Concerning, the Emerald's
recent artide about KASH, there
are several mistakes that I feel
should be corrected.
First, the article mentions that
our aU news and information for
mat is not yet three weeks old.
This is a trivial mistake, but it indi
cates to me that your reporter was
not paying dose attention when
she interviewed me. KASH
switched to the all news format
last March 22, 1976.
The artide mentions that we
feature NBC news. This is not cor
rect. KASH subscribes to the
News and Information Service
(NIS). NIS is a subsidiary of NBC.
There is no duplication of pro
gramming, announcers or fea
tures on NIS and NBC news. They
are separate, distind services.
The artide further implies that
KASH will broadcast the Olympic
Games. Of course NIS will fea
ture extensive, in-depth coverage
of the games, but this is not the
same thing as carrying the games
in their entirety.
I point out these mistakes be
cause other media and broadcast
outlets in our area may be carrying
portions of the Olympic games
and NBC news is carried by
another local radio station. Since
the artide was based on an inter
view with me, I do not want other
area broadcasters to think that I'm
making false claims about our
programming.
Finally, the article says that
KASH expects a smaller share of
the audience than competing sta
tions. This is simply not true. I
never made such a statement.
Programmers at any commencal
broadcast station always strive for
the largest share of the listening
audience. Your reporter must
have been confused when I ex
plained that, histohcaly, all news
stations tend to show up in the
rating books with a “cume” or
cumulative audience, that is dis
proportionately large in compari
son with their average share.
I do appreciate the Emerald’s
interest in our new format. All of us
at KASH are very pleased with the
response from the community
thus far, and are proud to be able
to bring complete and in-depth
news and information to the area.
John Etheredge
operations manager
Editor's note: The Emerald
appreciates these errors being
brought to our attention. The “mis
takes" Mr. Etheredge refers to
crept into the story somewhere
between the original copy which
did not contain these errors and
the rewritten version which went
to the printer.
Last minute help
As coordinators for the 1976
Mock Democratic Convention we
have been working throughout the
school year in an attempt to or
ganize a realistic simulation of a
national convention. It has proven
to be quite a task, and some as
pects of the national convention
-opinion
Controlling tuition levels
Year after year students in higher education are
hit with tuition increases. This, combined with the
problem of insufficient financial aid, threatens to
deprive persons of access to higher education. It
is the mission of a responsible, well-run, student
association to work to alleviate these problems.
We as students have good reason to be un
happy with the way tuition has been rising. Even in
inflationary times the spiraling cost of tuition
stands out, rising 210 per cent in the last ten
years.
In the past, the Department of Higher Education
has proposed budgets to the Legislature —
budgets including increased costs due to rising
salaries, increased staff, and general inflation. In
an effort to placate students and enlist their sup
port for the budget at the Legislature, the State
Board of Higher Education has always promised
no tuition increase. Students have naturally gone
along with the board in presenting a united front to
the Legislature on behalf of the proposed budget.
The problem is, however, that this tactic has never
worked. Historically, resident undergraduate tui
tion has been set at a level to be a certain propor
tion of the total cost of instruction — roughly 25
per cent. This philosophy, in conjunction with
pressure for state funding of other worthy pro
grams, has meant approval, in substantial part, of
the budget, an important exception being that the
state share has been reduced with the student
burden increased.
In April, the State Board's Committee on Fi
nance half-heartedly decided to once again come
up with an increased budget which provided for no
increase in tuition, with increased expenses to be
covered by state funds. Once again, it looks as
though students may fall into the trap of aligning
themselves too closely with higher education offi
cials with regard to tuition and the State System
budget.
The time has come for students to take a new
approach. As consumers we should play an ac
tive role in seeking the best possible education for
the lowest possible cost To achieve this, we must
eliminate unwarranted costs from the higher edu
cation budget and work for a lowering of the per
centage paid by students.
To eliminate unwarranted costs, we will have to
scrutinize the budget and ask tough questions. Is
it wise to offer degree-granting programs in some
fields at more than one campus, or can we save
money by eliminating costly duplication? For the
next academic year, faculty members will be
given an average of a 10 per cent increase in
salary, coming on the heels of an increase in
excess of 13 per cent for the present year. Can we
justify giving such extensive increases to faculty
members who are already getting more than
V
$20,000 per year while teaching no more than two
classes, with the cost-of-living rising less than 6
per cent annually? Couldn't students get a better
education at less cost if we put more emphasis on
instruction over research? Is it justified for the
State System to continue its expensive construc
tion program at a time of stable enrollment and
short supply of money?
By working to lower the percentage of the
budget covered by tuition, students can for once
be a truly effective party in the establishment of
future tuition levels. It can be expected that legis
lators will be receptive to student concerns about
getting the most out of their tuition dollars. Any
costs must be justifiable in terms of the education
which will accrue to students.
We as students can make our case most effec
tively by responsibly arguing for both cutting un
necessary costs and altering the tuition proportion
of the budget. In addition, we ought to explore
ways of establishing tuition rates independently of
the total cost of instruction. For example, we may
find it productive to argue that faculty salary in
creases be separated from the budget. This
would have the benefit of not pitting students
against faculty in the fight for scarce dollars.
Much of what we have said about the higher
education budget has been in terms of looking to
ways of minimizing costs. Students should also
be in the position of working to kind programs
which are in the student interest. This weighing by
students of where the money should go — using
judgment independent of board officials — is en
tirely new and represents the realization that we
constitute a separate and distinct interest and
must arrive at positions based on our own
analysis. For too long students have found them
selves in the position of aligning themselves com
pletely either with faculty members or adminis
trators when it comes to the higher education
budget. Now s the time for independent action as
a separate and distinct third party.
By carefully studying the facts of the student
financial issues of keeping tuition down and en
suring adequate funding of financial axis, and
then working aggressively to achieve these ends
in the Legislature, the ASUO as the advocate for
student concerns wifl be able to protect all stu
dents. Complete and successful action on behalf
of students requires an experienced and know
ledgeable, competent and committed, hard work
ing and independently active ASUO Executive.
Jim Davis
candidate, ASUO pres.
Mark Cogan
ASUO admin, assistant
/
_
we found impossible to simulate.
In some of our endeavors we have
been successful, and in others,
we have not However, we are re
ceiving some last minute assis
tance in our efforts. The Re
volutionary Student Brigade is
planning to form a picket line and
stage a raly on Friday night at
Mac Court, the site of our conven
tion. We are very pleased to learn
of this, and since it makes our
convention a more realistic simu
lation we encourage attendance.
However, we deeply regret that
those students outside Mac Court
will not be able to receive any
credits for their efforts, as those
inside Mac Court are receiving.
Penny Roberts
pol. sci., sr.
and five co-signers
Back into it
I am quite concerned about the
level to which the ASUO presiden
tial contest has dropped. I am the
first to admit that Davis has made
mistakes and enemies this year,
but none of the letters blasting him
gave facts or real incidents except
for one campaign violation that
even the Elections Court admitted
was petty.
I think back nostalgically to the
Liberty administration whose
slogan was "out of the sandbox."
This campaign has dragged the
ASUO back into it. The integrity
and creekbi Sty of either candidate
is in jeopardy for next year as a
result of divisive and irresponsible
political slurs.
Serious issues face the stu
dents next year, but debate has
centered only on personality and
image. Davis has been painted as
a “more of the same” candidate
as if that were bad, even though
this year's executive has been
rated first in the nation by the Na
tional Student Association due to
innovation and probing into new
areas of student interest and
power.
I have no personal allegiance
with any Executive staff member
but I do support their issues. Davis
has made his stand clear; Oliver
has not been as clear. I urge pub
lic debates between the candi
dates so the serious issues can be
raised, and I urge voters to base
their choices on the issues, not on
rhetoric or image.
Dan Gamer
pol. sci., sr.
ASUO admin, assistant
I urge
As a stop-Carter movement
seems to be gathering momen
tum, I caution all Mock D-N-C
voters to use the practical ap
proach when balloting for presi
dent. The anybody-but-Carter ap
proach is impractical as would a
Humphrey draft be. In reality,
Humphrey s health and illegal
contributions would be liabilities in
the November election.
/
I personally favor Moms Udall,
but would be willing to support him
for V.P. should Carter garner
enough votes to take the nomina
tion on the first or second ballots.
What our party needs is a candi
date who has won the nomination
through tt>e primary system and
state conventions. This would
avoid the bitterness which results
from a brokered convention in the
infamous smoke-filled room. We
need not repeat 1968 nor 1972.
Last Friday, Washington and
Lee in Lexington, Virginia held a
Mock D-N-C. The school, with a
nine-out-of-ten record for picking
the actual presidential nominee,
gained national attention by
nominating Jimmy Carter on the
second ballot.
In short, I urge a practical ap
proach in our Mock D-N-C to
wards unity of the party. This
could take the form of uncommit
ted delegates supporting the
Democratic frontrunner, of those
committed to favorite sons or
long-shots similarly changing their
votes for the second ballot or of
those committed to the second
place candidate compromising for
a V.P. slot on the ticket. In any
case, the nomination must occur
no later than the second ballot if
we are to bring it out of the
smoke-filled room and into the
hands of the American people.
Barry Hood
Chairperson, New Jersey
UO 1976 Mock Democratic
Convention